42 shots fired by 7 officers in 11 seconds doesn't sound friendly. It sounds frenzied. Training much?
5
My sympathy is muted when the NYPD gets a dose of it’s own medicine: the use of extreme force and a shoot first ask questions later mentality.
5
Arm chair quarterback statements here are ridiculous. This was a violent robbery and potential hostage situation. The bad guys have semi autos , the cops need semi autos. There is no amount of training that you could do to be prepared for this situation. It’s life or death and why we pay these brave souls the meager salary we do for them to put their life on the line for all of us
3
"He was shot eight times, the police said, and was in stable condition at New York Hospital Queens. He was charged with murder and robbery." Maybe I missed something - how can Ransom be charged with murder if he had a fake gun and the only officer killed was shot by "friendly fire"!!!
4
"Details of fatal police shootings in New York City can be slow to emerge in the initial 24 hours, in part because police investigators do not typically interview the officers who have discharged their weapons right away for legal reasons related to the Fifth Amendment."
There's a statement that could stand clarification. Did the police unions have anything to do with that policy? And if I as a civilian shoot someone in self defense with my legal weapon, do I get a 24 hour pass also? And finally, here's another good reason they should've hung on to the .38 Cal. Police Special 6-shot revolver.
4
I am saddened by this event. While police are here to protect the citizens they should not be considered sacrificial to a cause. In LA few months ago during an active shooting a patrolman was killed by a shooter. While I commend his actions and the actions of all police that try to protect the innocent. I think that each situation must be analyzed. Taking a few moments to put on a bullet proof vest when going into a shooter situation IMHO is prudent. If you do get hit in the vest it may give you the ability to return fire and take down the bad guy. If no shots have been fired, and innocents have been only detained, waiting for back up is not derilection or cowardice. I consider that assessment planning. Again this is my opinion only. Police are humans and crises situations escalate quickly. They are there to bring situation to a close. Never forget they are humans and deserve benefit of a doubt in complex and dangerous episodes.
2
What does Friendly Fire mean?
1
You'll never break police omerta. They appear to welcome any excuse for a shooting gallery. Also, be careful with motive. In the "fog of war", fragging is easily on the agenda. Don't for a second think the police will do anything but cover up. Don't for a second think the murk and mayhem run deep in NYPD... and around the country.
And, why? Because they are a mistake away, miscalculation away, a heartbeat away from a bullet every time they enforce our laws. Their default? Shoot. You'll live to argue the point later. A society less addicted to guns and drenched in the blood of TV, Gaming, and Movie violence might shoot less allowing cops to shoot less.
America, the great shooting gallery. #NRAnolivesmatter.
5
Cops are scared and over armed. I was pulled over for speeding in Naples, Fl, the land of old people especially in winter. I was on my BMW motorcycle, hardly the choice bike for hardened criminals. The first thing out of the cops mouth while still shielded by his car door, hand on his gun, was “are you armed” he repeated it twice as I couldn’t hear him until I removed my helmet. The look of relief on his face when despite the long hair was a 63 year old man’s face was surprising. I gave him my license but he didn’t even want to see it, he just asked me to slow down, didn’t even write up a warning.
The police are terrified, and ready to shoot at any provocation.
6
The average cop does not need to carry a semi automatic weapon. For decades the NYPD used .38 revolvers that did not carry a lot of penetration power due to the fact hat a slug may pass through a criminal and hit a innocent person. The police really just need to slow down or entrap a suspect until the specialized units arrive. That is why they have radios. Help is close by and plentiful. This is how it is done in many European cities where death by cop is much less common. Many police in Europe do not carry guns, they have specialized units that are called as needed.
The temptation to keep firing a automatic pistol until the clip is empty is too great for them to resist. Go back to the six shell .38.
6
Arm chair quarterback with zero idea of police work. This was a active hostage situation and he lunged at the police with the gun. What what you have them do ?, all get killed for the alter of your idea of European unarmed policing . There are 2 guns for every person in the USA
2
Simply poor training combined with the fact that most policemen aren't the sharpest tacks in the box. Let's just admit that. In Europe, you see many instances where armed individuals are shot in the lower extremities with a minimum amount of firing, posturing and shouting. Why can't we do that here? Why do we train police to shoot to kill in every instance?
4
Terrible outcome for a great cop and his family, but that shouldn't be the end of it. This is evidence of poor training, poor leadership, a poor deployment of resources, and a general trigger happy panic all around. The same kind of fusillade seems to happen, frequently with the death of an unarmed suspect, who might have survived on or two shots. Diallo.
7
Firstly, my condolences to all those involved. Secondly, I hope the Times will investigate what the written protocols are for events like this and whether or not they were followed. With civilians in the store, this event very easily could have been far more deadly than it was.
4
It may well be that police are sometimes justified in their attempts to kill suspects. But it is clear that police have a very strong propensity to shoot civilians. We see this in the large number of unarmed citizens that they kill and in the veritable hail of bullets from many cops in situations like this one.
Gun-happy cops inevitably kill people who are innocent, both innocent civilians and occasionally fellow cops.
In cases like this one, our unjust and idiotic laws actually hold the suspect legally responsible for the innocent people these gun-happy cops kill. Just watch as they add a charge against the suspect for murder of the cop by the gun-happy cops.
1
How is it possible to charge a man with a fake gun with murder? He didn't shoot the detective slaughtered by the "brave men in blue".
1
@CW
That is standard. Do you seriously expect the politicians who pass the laws, the judges, and the prosecutors, and (sadly) juries to hold police responsible when police kill innocent people?
Within the New York Penal Law, when committing certain felonies where a death results intentionally or not, at the hand of the defendant or accomplices, during the crime or in flight after, a charge of murder attaches. The charge is colloquially known as Felony Murder.
2
@From Where I Sit
Thanks for the clarification.
I guess the cops are considered "accomplices".
SHould be fun to watch the cops lie and cover up this one.
2
"Details of fatal police shootings in New York City can be slow to emerge in the initial 24 hours, in part because police investigators do not typically interview the officers who have discharged their weapons right away for legal reasons related to the Fifth Amendment." This cannot be true. If it were a constitutional Fifth Amendment issue it would apply to everyone including suspects -- a civilian shooting a police officer would get a 24-hour break on being interviewed due to the 5th! The real reason appears to be official collusion with the "code of silence" to allow officers to cook up their stories and, if more than one is involved, to get on the same page. Police and civilians have the same constitutional rights. The Black Lives Matter movement and distrust of the police, in general, is, in part, motivated by the ignoring of this fact by government officials especially the elected representatives of the people who have refused to use their oversight responsibilities to ensure equal protection and justice under the law for all citizens.
2
The reason is one of forced statements. Since the government is both the law and the employer, requiring the officers to be promptly interviewed under the threat of disciplinary action is considered coercion. It would taint any statements against their use in court.
3
My condolences to the family and loved ones of Detective Simonsen. For all cops involved, this is probably their worst nightmare. Others have already (and correctly) mentioned the low accuracy even a trained pistol shooter can achieve over distances longer than about 25 feet. I have these questions to which we might get some answers as the investigation gets underway:
1. Were all cops, but especially the ones who responded, made aware by dispatch that there were plain clothes officers at the scene?
2. Police Glocks can be the type that can fire automatically (machine pistol). Were those used here?
3. Does the NYPD have the ability to securely send pictures of such plain clothes officers to the responding uniformed units en route, to reduce friendly fire incidents such as this one, and, if yes, why wasn't it done?
3. Friend-foe recognition is a key problem in any armed conflict situation. As far as I know, plain clothes officers still wear their police radios. Isn't there a way to add a "friend" signalling to those, e.g. a warning light on the service weapon if aimed at somebody wearing a police radio? Modern technology should allow to make that hard enough to fake and the receiver light enough to add to a service weapon.
3
@Pete in Downtown
"Were all cops, but especially the ones who responded, made aware by dispatch that there were plain clothes officers at the scene?"
What difference should that make? You apparently think cops should take more precautions against shooting innocent people when the innocent person is a cop in civilian clothes versus when the innocent person is a civilian in civilian clothes. I think that is an offensive and outrageous value system.
@Errol Believe it or not, I agree that police should exercise maximum caution before shooting anybody, especially innocent bystanders. Making armed officers aware of (armed!) plain clothes colleagues at the scene will make it safer for all people in civilian clothes there. Otherwise, seeing a non-uniformed person holding a gun drastically increases the likelihood that the uniformed cops feel threatened and start shooting. Knowing that this person may be a colleague gives that extra, possibly life-saving, pause, and also reduces the likelihood of hurting bystanders.
2
@Pete in Downtown
Sadly, I think you are correct that cops being aware that there are plain clothes cops at the scene will make it safer for innocent civilians. If cops were honorable and professional, it wouldn't make any difference. But cops aren't so they don't exercise as much care to protect innocent civilians unless one of their own is among them.
My condolences to the family. It is very sad.
Many of the commenters have discussed the number of shots fired. I would like to look at this situation from a slightly different perspective. What are NYC Police standards on response to a crime? For a small store like T-Mobile wouldn't 4 officers initially be more effective? And then if they determined if an additional backup was needed that more officers be called at that point.
3
"The one constant for NYPD officers is they have and remain loyal to 9mm pistols. They also only use Speer’s 124-grain Gold Dot hollow point +P load on duty. Regarding sidearms, times have changed. These days most NYPD recruits get a choice of a department-issued gun. They actually try each pistol during the academy and, with the help of the instructors, decide what works better for each individual rookie officer. The three duty pistol options (as of April 20, 2017) are the Glock 19 , the Smith & Wesson 5946 and the Sig Sauer P226 DAO. Due to the fear of a “negligent discharge,” NYPD-issued guns have some of the hardest triggers in the world, approaching 12-pound trigger pulls;"
The officer who was shot was killed by a high velocity 9mm round, the Speer’s 124-grain Gold Dot hollow point +P load used by NYPD officers. In other words, struck in the chest and without body armor the officer was doomed. Had a slower .45 caliber been used, and also body armor, he may have had a chance. We'll never know.
Also, we should note with great concern, the number of rounds allowed in police service weapons. NYPD police are allowed to use magazines with "only" a 15 round capacity, something mocked by NYPD officers. They want the full 17 round capacity. At least 42 rounds were fired in 11 seconds. Keep in mind they used + P loads that added lethality to rounds fired.
But, they can't hit anything even with high tech sights.
Training, weapons and ammunition need a stringent review.
7
On the same day in Vallejo, California, six police officers shot and killed a man whose crime was sleeping in his car outside a Taco Bell.
Credit the NRA. Police assume every person in the United States is flush with guns, ready to kill them. Non-stop propaganda and fear mongering by the NRA is steadily turning the US into a paranoid, violent society.
Credit our corrupt leadership. Police know that they will never be held accountable for killing someone. Police shoot first because there will be no questions later. It's become unpatriotic to demand accountability from the police.
The NRA continues shape American culture because politicians can't keep their hands out of the NRA piggy bank. Kids in school are now required to take a course on how to behave when approached by the police. This is necessary because police will hurt and/or kill you if you do anything that makes them "fear for their safety". Your tax dollars at work.
Isn't everyone sick of the violence on both sides of the law? How many more have to die before we demand reform?
6
@Wall Street Crime Simple. There ARE dangerous people in this world. I know LEO's will protect me from them, since I am not a law breaker. I don't know that cop haters and BLM will protect me, in fact I know that they would be more than happy to harm me. Therefore, I also fear for cops' safety and want them to do what is needed for their own protection.
Appalling reaction and I’m certain that this was not part of police protocol and training.
My first thought was: “What if there were customers running out of the store after seeing a robbery in progress? They would have run into a hail if bullets!”
And of course I wonder if the detective would be alive if he had worn his bulletproof vest.
4
Didn't stop to put on his vest. Panic and death in a hail of bullets. One bullet by Friendly Fire kills the officer without a vest. Why does one person with a gun robbing a store need to die in a hail of bullets ? Where's that TV Sergeant who takes command of the situation ? Where's the training ? There's a lot of angry, afraid cops on the street. This isn't Afghanistan this isn't a war zone. These are people robbing a store not trying to destroy America. These are, usually, American citizens.
Let's try to be less afraid of each other. This was a small time crook who caused Panic and the poorly trained officers, including this detective, who forgot his vest, died in friendly fire. As the saying goes, "Only Fools Rush In".
2
@Jamie Keenan There are urban neighborhoods all across the US that are every bit as dangerous as Afghanistan.
Sorry, but back in my federal law enforcement training days (35 years ago) I was taught to aim for "center mass." From what I can gather from this account, this was something out of a bad cops and robbers movie.
1
So the solution to gun deaths is more guns?
1
What is the definition of trigger happy?
@Sam Song When a white cop/male tries to protect his own life, he is by definition "trigger happy", according to the left.
2
If the police were smart, they would have protocols for engaging with automatic/semi-automatic fire. Possibly they could require manufacturers to provide glock-type pistols that have toggle single-shot/automatic fire settings. We have been seeing these events of uncontrolled use of police firepower occur since the Amadou Diallo shooting when police were shooting against their own ricocheting bullets. Rules on use of automatic fire might go a long way to reducing these events. If the police were smart.
4
One bad guy with a fake gun + umpteen highly trained good guys with real guns.
Precisely the outcome the NRA predicts.
4
This story illustrates the downside of having secret police (undercover cops) and god help anyone else who is fleeing the scene of a shooting.
4
First thought. The robber is yet another mentally ill person who should have been under treatment or incarcerated. Second thought. Based on the article, the first cops in should have shot the robber the moment he appeared with the fake gun. The photo makes it clear that the gun looked real enough that whether he had it raised or not, they would have been right to shoot him. Finally and most obviously, the NYPD are NOT, NOT, NOT well-trained. This is NOT the first time that they have opened up in a situation where they could not have taken well-aimed shots. Usually they hit bystanders. This time they hit the cops. Panic sets in and they spray and pray. 42 shots and the robber lives but the cop is killed? This is due to lack of training and bad aim, not being "well-trained" as one of the Times Picks comments would suggest. Those of us who are legal handgun owners in other states also know that in an attempt to prevent accidental i.e. negligent discharges of service weapons, NYPD hand guns are required to have non-standard triggers which inherently reduce accuracy. Another problem created by poor training. I am not an expert on police training so I won't presume to suggest how to better train them, but the pattern is sadly obvious.
6
@Paul The NYPD has over 38,000 uniformed officers so it would be prohibitively expensive to give every officer the range training they would need to become well-trained shooters. And the lawyers are probably to blame for the fact that their service weapons are modified to have "New York triggers" with a trigger pull of somewhere around 11 pounds. (I once owned a 9mm Smith and Wesson Double Action Only pistol but sold it because the stiff trigger pull of around 10 pounds made it almost impossible for me to hit my targets.)
1
@Allan Langland It is up to the NYC public to adequately fund the police training instead of, for example, excessive welfare payments, sanctuary city lawsuits and appeals, etc. It is up to the NYC public to allow rational rules of engagement. Maybe the first two cops in hesitated because they had been ordered to hesitate. I don't know but it would not surprise me. I have read numerous articles that the NY triggers came about due to negligent discharges during the changeover from revolvers to Glocks. Would seem to me better to have given them semi-autos with safeties and train them to release the safety (like I learned on my Ruger and Sig). Then they would have accuracy on top of greater prevention of negligent firing. It still is about training. The cops outside violated Gun Safety Rule #4, taught to all of us private citizens who ever took an NRA, hunter safety, or pistol permit class. Know your target and what is behind it. In the end, it is about the priorities of NYC residents. That also includes funding treatment or confinement of the obviously mentally ill, like the robber who started the incident. Do you want your taxes spent on public safety or on hare-brained social justice warrior and welfare schemes?
2
It is long past time to start disarming police. The money saved on weapons can be put to use training them to deal with people.
2
As long as you also disarm our robbers and gangstas. Oh dear, no, we have done away with stop-and-frisk.
Which isn't to say there wasn't an element of racism in the practice. Unfortunately, having to frisk mostly black men is a given in our inner cities, where lack of parenting has created a class of young men whose affection is given over to other young armed men.
In America's heartland, we'd have to frisk every gangly weird-eyed white boy who's had a run-in with anyone at all. No telling when he'd have his daddy's gun on him in school or anywhere else.
And grown men who bring in multiple suitcases to high hotel rooms. And Muslims with wives who do not think it odd that they're casing gay bars.
We are in trouble.
Cops mentality is to shoot first and ask questions later. The robber, by all accounts, wasnt pointing the "gun" at anyone. I'm sure the cops were behind barriers, car doors, etc. So why just open fire and blast away? 11 seconds. Count to 11. It's longer than you think. 42 shots. 42. They just blasted away, not thinking at all. And what happened? They killed one of their own
This just proves that cops only know one path.
5
If the only tool in your toolkit is a hammer, then everything, every situation, every one who encounters you (including your coworkers) is going to be treated like a nail. In this instance, these officers were treated like a nail--hammered, if you will--42 times in 11 seconds. Where's the surprise?
The more important question for the thinking among us should be: Will this appalling event be used by the NYPD as a "teachable moment" for the men and women of New York's finest? You can bet your life that it will not.
Condolences to the families.
2
This reminds one of the Midtown shootout in 2012, when NYPD marksmen shot nine bystanders.
3
The story calls the imitation handgun “harmless”- apparently not.
1
"Those 11 seconds of blind confusion will be parsed in the days and weeks ahead".
That would never happen if the victim was an innocent black man.
4
I followed the hyperlink to the story about the officer buying his bottle of water at the bodega; a nice tribute by the owner to close his store for a day in honor of the officer.
2
I know that split-second decisions have to be made.
I know that a fake gun looks like a real ones
I know that officers face danger every day
I know that officers suffer from the constant fear
I know that their families suffer from the same fear of loss
But I don't know why it is necessary for officers to fire 42 shots in 11 seconds when not a single shot has been fired at them
3
@UH
Lack of training, fear, lack if intestinal fortitude, panic at the disco, you name it. The NYPD is an untrained police force with very little discipline. If I did something like that in Iraq I would be relieved, investigated, prosecuted and most likely sent to FT Leavenworth Prison.
1
I'm so sorry to hear that a police officer was killed while responding to a robbery attempt call. However there are a lot of questions. It almost sounds like two groups of police were positioned on opposite each other when all of the shots at the burglar were fired. If that is true then that "crossfire" positioning was begging for a friendly fire incident. The next question is why wasn't the officer who was killed wearing his bullet proof vest? It would likely have saved his life. The aim of these officers involved was terrible. 42 shots fired and only 8 hit their mark. More training in shooting firearms is warranted.
1
The NYPD needs to adopt a "designated shooter" policy in which a clear system of "who can open fire when" is detailed. It may have been reasonable to open fire on Mr. Ransom, but nobody needed 42 bullets flying at once. One or two cops, expertly trained, with long guns, can be far more accurate and ultimately safe then a bunch of bravos going off at the hip.
2
I wonder if the fatal bullet might have been a ricochet rather than the shot officer being accidentally in direct line of fire. That's what can happen in these circumstances; a bullet can be deflected anywhere.
It is believed that a ricochet killed one of the hostages in the Lindt Cafe incident in Sydney NSW, not an aimed shot.
1
@Bruce Stafford
They use very powerful bullets which most likely would have gone through, not ricochet, the building. And if it were a ricochet, would it change anything? No.
My condolences to the Simonsen family, friends and fellow police. I find it a recurring theme with not only the NYPD, but most of the police in the USA: Poor training and terrible marksmanship. I don't know why police departments don't insist on more weapons training and Tactics, Techniques and Procedure drills to accompany strict engagement rules. Even for the military, close-in combat is extremely dangerous and very easily can lead to so called "Friendly Fire" incidents. Police unions, chiefs and politicians must insist on more training. Constant and repetitive training works. Claiming that target range shooting for one or two days every six months is training, is a joke. Close quarters fighting with weapons requires repeated training over and over again. It takes hard training and above average physical fitness to properly engage in these types of fights. Blasting away with over 40 bullets being fired is not only amateurish, but a disgrace for any law enforcement agency. The way the responding officers went in blasting away was extremely dangerous not only to other police, but to the citizenry within range of those bullets -- bullets tend to go through people, walls and buildings. So, Mr. Mayor, Commissioner, and Chiefs, when does your training program begin?
7
If anyone needs high capacity magazine restrictions it is the police. Look at the record of NYPD shooting, they just empty their weapon with little to no discipline. Obviously they do not even have the ability to aim correctly (rounds fired v hits) nor identify legitimate targets. This is panic shooting by scared people, not the acts of well trained professionals.
7
If in fact, the comment that Mr. Ransom suffered from autism is accurate, then there will be even more tragedy in the backstory, in addition to the sad loss of the police detective.
3
First and foremost, police officers are not highly trained shooters. They typically fire a very limited number of training rounds per year, often just enough to maintain their truly minimal required qualification level.
A competitive shooter in any shooting sport at any level, on the other hand, fires many thousands of live rounds per year, often supplemented by many more rounds of dry fire.
Truly highly trained professional police shooters exist in only very limited numbers in a few elite international units. Members of the elite French anti-terrorist GIGN, for example, typically fire 100 training rounds per day of full power 357 magnum rounds in their Manurhin MR 73 revolvers. They are capable of almost instantaneously disabling terrorists at up to 50 yards with quick head shots from their handguns. The first GIGN member to enter the cockpit of highjacked Air France Flight 8969 in December 1994 used his MR 73 revolver to instantly kill two terrorists armed with automatic weapons, and put a third out of action, before being wounded himself.
Rather than being highly trained shooters, most US police officers have barely mastered basic weapon function, and simply "pray and spray" using high magazine capacity semi-automatic handguns. Disciplined, controlled, accurate shooting is completely outside their capability.
5
The city is too busy giving money away in lawsuits and welfare payments to afford any type of training
Watching BBC police dramas, I can't help but note the lack of gun use by police but for limited circumstances under strict oversight. Fewer guns all around for the police, the bad guys and the public. This coming on the anniversary of the Parkland school shooting it seems like we don't learn that guns=death.
8
But then Britain has strict gun laws and their criminals are not armed to the teeth like ours.
@B. Yes, I said that but not in your words.
My husband is in law enforcement, and has been for 30+ years. He watches lots of police-type TVs shows (CSI, NCIS, etc), during which I point out all the ridiculous plot holes and he critiques the technique. One of his most frequent comments is “Crossfire,” which is his shorthand for poor positioning as officers move in to catch a suspect: on many shows they will flank the “bad guy” in such a way that any shots they fire could potentially wound their fellow officers. It’s something officers are taught early: never shoot without knowing where the suspect is in relation to others, and certainly don’t take multiple shots if you have concerns about bystanders (or fellow officers). It’s also drilled in to avoid “surrounding” a suspect if possible, to avoid the chances of shooting (or being shot by) another cop. The friendly-fire death described here was a tragic mistake, but also sounds like tactically poor policing. At the same time, so many things are easy in theory, but when actually faced by a real-world threat it’s not uncommon that training is forgotten as fear or instinct kick in. Which is why officers need more intense training, lots of “playacting” scenarios and drills along with regular “refresher” courses — they need to turn the “theories” of training into instinct, so when faced with a potential threat they react in a way that is smart, safe and measured. Our public — and our cops — would greatly benefit.
7
Why is Ransom being charged with murder if he didn't have a real gun?
Inexcusable.
6
@Diana By his actions he is responsible. That's what is inexcusable.
5
If one is committing a crime and someone dies the one initiating the offense, the crime, is charged. If this person had not been at the store doing something illegal, no officer would have been called no shots would have been fired.
3
@Diana You mean the perp with 25 priors, right?
3
If police weapons all made a a particular sound when fired, would that help officers resist panicky fusillades? Perhaps that would help clarify the situation. As it stands, each additional officer firing reinforces the impression that they are all under fire, which encourages yet more firing.
Clearly there is more to be known about this incident than is conveyed in this story. I particular, how did this autistic man – if he really is autistic – come to be involved in a robbery? Was it really a robbery? I hope the times will do a much more detailed follow-up.
4
@DK In VT Ransom has 25 priors. He is a habitual criminal, not an angel.
1
This is a tragedy. I wonder if any words were 'fired' before the guns. Relieved there were no customers in the store. How many people can you kill with 42 shots?
4
Guns and confrontations raise the possibility of death instantly.
5
So I don't get why the robbery suspect has been charged with murder. He had a fake gun. The article doesn't say anything about the store employees being hurt. What????
1
Murder in the second degree
3. Acting either alone or with one or more other persons, he commits
or attempts to commit robbery, burglary, kidnapping, arson, rape in the
first degree, criminal sexual act in the first degree, sexual abuse in
the first degree, aggravated sexual abuse, escape in the first degree,
or escape in the second degree, and, in the course of and in furtherance
of such crime or of immediate flight therefrom, he, or another
participant, if there be any, causes the death of a person other than
one of the participants
If he is brandishing even a fake gun at people and by doing so gets them to relieve their cash registers of hard-earned money . . . .
All my grandparents were dirt-poor during the Depression. They did not rob people and if they had they would have received no sympathy.
Have we lost our minds?
I have no sympathy for a man with even a fake gun. His actions resulted in people being frightened, a 911 call, and a loss of life.
My grandfather sold candy from a pushcart in Fort Greene Park from early morning through late evening hours. You know, like a bodega worker except without a roof over his head. Who are these creeps who think they can rob a man of his living?
1
How about some police training to recognize and deal with autism? This is such a sad story.
3
Can we all finally agree that law enforcement officers are too trigger-happy these days?
5
Can we all agree that some people have learned no self-control at their parents' knees and think they can take what doesn't belong to them?
2
The cops could have killed anyone in the store or other bystanders. They simply resorted to overkill, and it should be no surprise it worked like overkill works.
8
Given the time we are in, fake guns should not be available. Fake-gun control!
4
"Seven officers opened fire toward the store — a total of 42 shots within 11 seconds, the police said. “It goes from zero to 60,”
0-60. Hasta la vista baby. Make my day. I may be mistaken but it sounds as if this type of mayhem is considered a feature rather than a bug. Aside from the obvious idea that a slightly more tempered approach might be in order, it really makes you think that these guys can't shoot straight at all. So they make up for lack of quality with quantity.
1
And here we have it, the result of the default policing methodology in the United States: the unthinking use of lethal force. Watch all the police shooting videos you like and you will see the quick transformation into a kind of hysteria by armed police officers. It’s so obvious to people from nations whose police earn respect without the threat of lethal force. Here it’s “friendly fire” (what a dreadful expression) but it’s usually the slaughter of unarmed African-Americans. It needs to change for the sake of all of us: black, white, and law officers themselves.
8
Most cops are ex military. Bad idea. Take a person that was trained to shoot everything in sight, hire them to walk among their fellow citizens (yes cops are citizens too) and give them semi automatic weapons. There was a reason NYC cops were restricted to 6 shot 38 caliber revolvers, they don’t do as much damage in a crowd.
When I worked at the airlines they would never hire ex navy pilots, they were trained to basically trained to crash a plane on the deck of a carrier. Old habits die hard, they found that the ex navy guys would land airliners the same way, slamming them on the runway.
Same with soldiers, fire at everything and get off as many rounds as possible. I doubt the union will allow the name of the officer who killed and wounded their fellow cops when they do a slug comparison.
38
@Paulie I agree with the problem of militarization of the police force, but soldiers are not trained to fire at everything that moves. Remember: Rules of Engagement? How some people think that soldiers are too restricted in their ability to deliver lethal force? Even on a battle field. A cellphone store in NYC is not even a battlefield.
11
@Paulie I'm reminded again of the murder of Amadou Diallo—the street vendor who was murdered by police officers when he was returning to his home. He held up his vendor's license, and the cops somehow saw a gun. They gave him a fusillade of 41 bullets. In the vestibule of his building.
At the protest a few days later, we chanted, "Police academy 101: it's a wallet, not a gun." They never learn.
10
@Paulie US soldiers aren't trained to just shoot anything. Especially in areas like Iraq and Afghanistan where insurgents are blending in with civilians.
There are rules of engagement, and honestly soldiers have may higher standards as to when to open fire at a possible threat.
9
Stun gun lasers should be used first. This was Police Riot a la Chicago PD 1968 at the Democratic Convention. What the Police did was criminal! ...a toy gun.
Some one needs to be fired and lethal force should be used only after attempts are made to disengage the robber by communicating with him.
Too much coffee and too many donuts(sugar).
.
4
This confirms the insanity of arming teachers.
10
Really? Just another example of cops being gun happy. ONE man with a hand gun means the ALL the cops that show up start shooting likes it's the OK-Corral? And never mind shooting their own guys in the crossfire, what about the "hostages" in the back room? You got all these cops blindly firing into the store and nobody thinks about the hostages being hit? And now the cherry on this mess is the kid with the fake gun who btw sounds a little "off" being a superhero and all, now he's gonna inherit a murder charge simply because the cops didn't have training or sense enough NOT to shoot each other. I'm pretty sure they totally wrecked the store too,
Good job cops.
5
This was bound to happen in the new paradigm of shoot 1st, think later.
3
"He was charged with murder and robbery."
What about Detective Simonsen's colleagues who actually shot him to death? Who gave orders to shoot?
Why are American cops are so trigger happy? Guns kill.
6
They are not highly trained with firearms just marginally trained when they were armed with revolvers the weapon itself posed some degree of discipline on the rate of fire. No such luck with an automatic these guys are about as good with the weapon as a soldier in basic training getting his marksman medal for not hitting Maggie's drawer's. There is no rate of fire discipline or acquire the target before engaging. A few months ago in a running pursuit 27 rounds were discharged on a busy sidewalk two civilians wounded. In the Army we called this recon by fire.
4
Oddly enough when I see a police officer and I see their gun strapped to their waist I do not feel safer. In fact I often feel the opposite and often end up leaving whatever venue I am at.
Whilst I send my condolences to the police officers family for this horrendous tragedy I believe that there should be a public outcry about how the officer died? A police officer was shot and killed by friendly fire in a barrage of bullets shot out in 11 seconds. How many more people could have been hit if the area was more crowded? I’m just making a guess here but I think the problem here is the large quantity magazines and the shoot first, ask question afterward mentality. Now I understand that in this situation decisions must be made in a split second but something must be done to minimize these mistakes.
M
4
Why is there always a pressing need to 'shoot to kill' and a hail of bullets almost without fail? I just find it hard to believe that a suspect cannot be disabled by targeting the thighs or shoulders. These are supposedly trained professionals and the distance is usually not much? And what is the need to fire so many? My heart goes out to the family of the deceased and the cops on the scene.
2
Police officers murdered per year
US: ~50
UK: <1
Citizens killed by police per year
US: ~1,000
UK: ~1
But guns keep us safe!
7
@Jethro Please compare the population sizes between the US and UK.
Population of US = about 309 million as of 2016
Population of UK = about 63 million as of 2016
When you calculate the multiplier we have roughly 4.5 times the amount of people in the US vs UK.
So...here’s the adjustment
Police Officers murdered per year:
US ~ 50
UK ~ 5
Citizens killed by police per year
US ~ 1000
UK ~ 5
Pretty sure @Jethro’s point still stands....
Math is fun!
2
The additional detail that the suspect is a young man with autism is heart-wrenching information. That he admired police officers, all the more. As the spouse of a 20-year veteran police officer, now retired, I lay awake from nightmares like this many nights. Why was the suspect charged with murder? The reports indicate his weapon was fake. What a tragedy. My heart goes out to all involved. RIP Detective Simonson, EOW 02/12/2019
4
Innocents killed by cops. It’s not new.
Hundreds of unarmed Americans are killed by cops each year. The difference this time is that it was a cop who was killed. At least he had a gun. Small consolation.
Why does this happen only in America? Why don’t Americans want to stop it?
And actually, why are cops OK with it? They are too often occupiers of neighborhoods, feared, not loved. Government workers, killing and intimidating- is that a career anyone would want? Don’t they want to make their profession better?
But we already know the outcome of all the upcoming “thorough” investigations of this incident: “Nobody at fault, couldn’t be helped, we should have more training.“
And so we will continue on, our police officers killing us at rates higher than any other developed nation.
Land of the free indeed.
I’m sorry for the family’s loss.
4
This can happen occasionally but the recent militarization of police and "hit squad" mentality has gotten out of control. I am sorry for the detective who lost his life.
3
Apparently EVERYONE should be scared of cops overreacting. They seems so poorly trained and emotionally reactive that it makes me wonder if we need to start over, rethinking our use of force strategy from the ground up.
7
If you ever see video of police actions that include gunfire, you will be amazed at the chaos, near panic and hysteria that appears. If one officer fires a single shot, all others in the immediate vicinity join in with a fusillade that is as disorganized as it is furious. Its mob action, primal group outrage and confusion. Its no wonder that fewer than 20% of police bullets hit their target, that innocent people are wrongly slaughtered, or that 'friendly fire' takes down many officers every year. No matter the propaganda, cops are not well-trained, cool TV heros. They are fearful humans just like the rest of us, who happen to be attached to powerful and lethal tools.
7
When will we make it the rule, everywhere in the US, that no police office ever fires bullets at a fleeing person.
If he's going away you can catch him later.
You can't bring back the ones mistakenly killed.
This is the result of a western cowboy attitude shared by too many; it hurts to let the suspect get away; so they shoot. Many are mistakenly hurt, usually not police.
NEVER fire at a fleeing suspect!
4
It is all about training. All the commentators who are waxing hot about "highly trained" armed police making bad decisions and firing away furiously have no idea what they are talking about. The police are good men, doing a hard job, and despite the TV shows, they are rarely called upon to act in a fire fight. Some police may go a whole career without firing a shot "in anger". That is the reason that they do not train in small arms tactics and combat pistol firing. That is the reason police forces have SWAT. Should all the police have more intensive training for these situations? Of course, but I would guess that the all the know it all commentators wouldn't want to pay for it.
5
Lots of comments criticizing the cops. I agree, it was literally overkill. They made some terrible mistakes, and let's hope there are consequences.
However, let's not forget this wasn't a "simple" armed robbery. Assuming the NYT story is accurate, "The call came in just after dark on Tuesday — a masked man with a gun was robbing a T-Mobile store in Queens, holding two employees in a back room."
So, was the criminal holding the employees hostage? If so, I understand why so many cops were summoned.
3
Bad idea putting semi-automatic weapons in the hands of semi-trained police officers. Bad idea to ride up on a robbery scene without a vest, a real bad idea. As noted by one police commander, setting up a position that produced a crossfire was not smart.
In the early 1970's cops clamored for more fire power to deal with the perceived threat from the criminal element. At that time, law enforcement experts foresaw tragedies like the one in Queens County. Over reaction, poor communication and lack of fire discipline are obvious in this instance. Everyone grieves for all the officers involved. They will live with this for the rest of their lives. The alleged perpetrator it seems was trying to commit "suicide by cop."
Will anyone learn anything from this incident? One wonders.
7
It is with a lot of sadness that one has to say good intentions and willingness to 'charge in' are not sufficient, and in fact a formula for disaster, in a situation like this. This kind of confrontation requires that the responders automatically fall into a hierarchy with some one individual 'calling the shots'. Application of controlled violence requires sophistication, and that requires intense tactical training. All of that said, my heart goes out to the officers and their families.
3
Upon arriving at the store, the officers were confronted with absolutely the most terrifying vision that can confront the police: A black man with a gun.
It's not surprising then that the police fired 42 times in 11 seconds. Sadly, this time, their fear, panic and poor training resulted in the killing of one of their own and the wounding of another. These people could easily have been innocent bystanders.
Isn't it time that officers are retrained in the use of their service weapon? Keep shooting until the "threat" is dead endangers the innocent and no longer serves the greater society.
7
Firstly and primarily, my condolences to the family of Detective Simonsen. In addition, well trained officers have a shooting accuracy of only 18%. This is why anyone that thinks they're protected by having a gun in their home is under a false sense of security. This tragedy shows how easily it is even for professionals to unfortunately not hit their intended target.
216
@Louis
"This is why anyone that thinks they're protected by having a gun in their home is under a false sense of security."
30 * .18 = 5 The math seems solid to me.
2
@Louis It is far more likely that the policemen saw a man with a gun raised, decided he was a threat and gunned him down. Unfortunately, it happened to be one of their own. Very likely they didn't even notice the actual robber until it was all over, given that they were shooting from the outside of the store and managed to hit not one but two officers.
A common occurrence with the American police, it seems. Just more often than not the victim of this knee-jerk shoot-first-ask-questions-later reaction is an innocent (or at least non-threatening) guy minding his own business, not a police officer.
44
@Louis so let's do away with those ridiculous 10 round magazine restrictions, right?
7
And yet people still think that a bunch of good guys with guns will solve active shooter incidents. If highly-trained police officers over-react like this, what do they think the outcome would look like if 7 untrained civilians were in the same situation?
343
This is a profound and astute observation on the one year anniversary of the Parkland shooting, and one I won’t soon forget as a brilliant example of why more guns means more death, period.
53
"If highly-trained police officers over-react like this, what do they think the outcome would look like if 7 untrained civilians were in the same situation?"
Someone should ask this question, point blank, to Mr. Trump, currently the most prominent spokesperson for the NRA's sabotage of common-sense gun regulations.
But then again we can predict his answer:
"Nobody cares more about victims of crime than me. Nobody in the world, ever! That's why we have to build that wall and stop the wave of crime that's coming across our border, devastating our country."
36
@Aaron yes it's possible that 7 armed coworkers would all just turn and shoot each other. Acknowledging that possibility, some would still rather be armed in the unlikely event that a madman stormed their school bent on murdering innocent children.
9
Hopefully we won't see another police shooting anytime soon, but next time there is one and it involves a person of color, let us remember that there were no calls for immediate arrest or firing of the shooter before an investigation in this case. Most, not all, of police on civilian shootings result from panic, adrenaline and poor training as it seems was the case here. And rather than look for a punitive response, the focus of the investigation should be on what can be learned from this case to prevent another one in the future
32
@Jake
What evidence do you have that this police on civilian shooting was the result of "panic, adrenaline and poor training"? (I'm not talking about what turned out to be a tragic police-on-police shooting in this case).
If, as the article suggests, Ransom was in the front door pointing his gun at or towards officers outside. There's really only one proper logical response unless there are unusual extenuating circumstances -- firing at the suspect to stop the threat.
Officers are not required to, and should not, wait until a gun wielding criminal (remember, they had every reason to correctly believe Ransom had just threatened two innocent people with his 'gun') to shoot a few officers or bystanders before returning fire.
I wonder if this was actually an attempted suicide by cop.
Anyway, the shooting of the innocent officers by other officers certainly should be investigated for the primary purpose of improving police training and procedures if that's appropriate. If an officer clearly and recklessly violated established policy and training, they should be disciplined however.
2
It sounds like the perp had some mental health issues, though not necessarily “autism”
4
42 shots in 11 seconds. 42 !!!! Where did these seven cops think they were ? In Afghanistan or Iraq? Could you not hear guns firing ? How many shots do you need to kill or disable ONE person? This is not some training in target practice.
Guys ... GUYS, as a NYC resident, I would just ask for some self-control. You ALL killed one of your own. A shame that will haunt you for the rest of your life.
Any cop who reads this ... please just use self restraint and do not turn yourself in to Rambo. Any of us could be your next innocent victim.
130
@Tim I bet anything that there is a class in the police academy and the only lesson is that if you feel the slightest threat, you should attack with everything at your disposal. Maximum force at all times. No negotiating. No hesitation.
And the environment in which the police operate is nearly relentlessly negative. No matter what the situation, if the police get involved, there is resentment and hostility from everyone all the time. The police are adrenaline primed.
And seconds count. No time for someone to take charge and control a situation. Everybody just pile on or open fire. Take no prisoners.
Several months ago, I watched an altercation on Amsterdam Avenue. Loud yelling; a woman with a couple of cops chasing about ten yards behind a guy. The guy gets to the middle of the Avenue; stops; takes off his jacket and throws it onto the street; raises his hands over his head; and walks slowly, hands over head, back to the the woman and the cops who have been joined by other cops. They all pounced on him like a pack of wolves on a deer; had him on the ground; knees on his neck and back. Justified?
4
42 rounds fired into a small store. Let's look at that another way. Would you be okay if only one policeman had shown up but had chosen to unload a buckshot 12 gauge 5-6 times into the store? Gosh that seems totally insane, right? You'd have no way of controlling who or what gets shot, just a hail of bullets flying into a small area.
That's exactly what happened, but it was a bunch of 9mm handguns instead. Same effect.
It's nuts to call that anything but negligent, and it could easily be interpreted as intent. Not a country in the western world that wouldn't convict someone of murder for this if the word 'police' wasn't involved.
66
@RS . Convict the officers, not the robber with a fake gun!
7
@RS
Now we see again the rationale for the Black Lives Matter movement. 42 to zero.
7
Plainclothes police are too often shot by friendly fire. Why can't they keep a special hat or other identifier on them that they can quickly put on if they are rushing into an unexpected situation where the danger is not being identified as police, especially when brandishing a gun?
21
@Martin
Hmm. A good idea, a magic hat.
1
@Martin this might seem incredibly dumb, but on the BBC show "The Bodyguard," the main character has a cap that he carries in his back pocket that does exactly that, I wondered if that was an actual thing in the UK when I watched.
2
Undercover police officers have signals. On different days they will wear certain hats or jackets etc so they are identifiable in the crowded street. However, in this instance, these officers shot were detectives in dress suits which is normal attire for their job.
1
Why was the robbery suspect charged with murder? He didn't have a real weapon. Is he being charged and probably convicted for police error? Yes the police would not have been there without the robbery in progress, but the robber did not murder anyone. The police killed one of their own.
A line from Bob Dylan "they've got a lot of forks and knives and they've got to cut somethin'..."
10
Even in movies, in American movies cops tend to fire in rapid succession while their European counterpart would fire once or twice. Such were always the case in questionable police shooting in the United States.
Why fired so many times when there was only one reported shooter while there were so many police officers? Were they trigger happy? Were they scared? Were they trained this way?
Given the many accounts of how police officers shoot unarmed civilians or inflict excessive force, I wonder if they had basic character flaw to work in law enforcement or if they were unprepared due to inadequate training?
3
For all the second amendment types: there are no good guys with guns to help. Cops can't even keep from shooting their own simply because there are so many guns in circulation.
This sort of thing would never happen where I now live, in Seoul, because there are not guns everywhere and the cops don't need to respond to robberies with the idea they are going to need to defend themselves against an armed robber.
Despite the being so close to North Korea, why is it safer to live in South Korea than in the states?
12
@Ronn - Ok back to basics. Get yourself a copy of The Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and check out the amendments in that bill. I'm not going to spoil it for you by telling you exactly where to look, I want it to be a surprise.
@CK "CK" your idea of "basics" is messed up. How many deaths from an outdated and bad law is going to keep America free?
Living in Seoul, I will never have to consider being shot by nutcases, police or criminals.
Reference to many of the comments. The bad guys don't carry revolvers anymore, they carry high capacity autos. The police need to survive in a gun fight with them, thus they have similar weapons with high capacity mags. I do agree that many need a lot more training.
4
They'd survive better if they knew who they were shooting at. By the way, once a suspected perp is on the ground, do cops ever stop shooting? This must have looked like the end of Bonnie and Clyde.
2
Hopefully there will be a through, competent, and unbiased investigation into this incident. If such an investigation is done we may have a better idea as to what happened.
Unless and until there is such a though, unbiased investigation we can only speculate how is unfortunate incident occurred.
That said, it appears to me that when the call of an armed robbery in progress went out over the police communication network many officers in the area rushed to the scene with no coordination among them. Then, when the robber, armed with a fake but real looking gun appeared in their midst, there was, in effect, a circular firing squad.
11
You'd think someone would control how many and which officers respond. Plain clothes detectives responding along with uniformed officers in a panic situation seems like wrong people getting shot would be inevitable.
One gunman in a store. Two cops in front, two in back and a command officer to assess situation and co-ordinate everyone. Unorganized and chaotic seem fair descriptions of what lead to the shootings of two officers by other officers.
8
It’s too bad you overlook the number of family members that are accidentally killed by in the home they live in because the homeowner, didn’t identify the target as a intruder. The numbers are up, and it shouldn’t be a surprise that statistically armed drivers are more likely to use profanity, or a known hand signal, go figure.
2
People posting comments, aren’t talking about officers helping, or in this case not helping. People are commenting on the obvious, why did 7 officers not identify who they were shooting at, and why was their rate of fire uncontrolled. In fact, the perpetrator was hit 8 times he survived, the officer that died was shot once, and the one that was wounded was hit once, that’s a total of 10 rounds accounted for.
That leaves 32 rounds that were peppering the store front, ricocheting around, which can be just as lethal. These are legitimate questions to ask, as a combat veteran, we’re trained to acquire your target, identify it as the enemy, then kill it, all that can be done if you’re well trained, by well trained I mean fire 2-3 rounds at a time, not just spray bullets around haphazardly.
When a soldier or police officer is is well trained, they will always fall back on their training without even thinking about it, it just happens, your brain just works like that. But it seems that these officers either weren’t trained, or poorly trained, I believe it’s the latter.
3
Lots of "experts" commenting here. At this point all we can really say is condolences to the officer's family and fellow officers. A tragic outcome. Let's not forget that most police officers want to help others.
16
@John
What can be asserted is this: The rapid escalation to shooting by police (in so many cases) is an exaggerated fear of a suspect and inability to correctly diagnose a situation.
Somehow, that needs to be addressed.
27
@A
Yes, that should be addressed - we need to train children in school starting from a very early age to (1) don't commit crimes, (2) never point a firearm at anyone who doesn't pose an illegal threat to you, and (3) if armed, drop your gun immediately (even if not asked to) and in a nonthreatening fashion when a police officer is involved.
If a criminal is/has recently threatened others with a gun and threatens you with the gun, shooting them is not an "exaggerated fear" -- it's just common sense. Officers in high crime areas that don't do that will too often go home in a box instead of their Ford one night.
Here's a video that shows an officer using a gun improperly (and dying due to that) and another using it appropriately (although, in the second case, it struck me that the officer may have exposed the hostage to unnecessary risk -- but maybe the officer knew he was as good a shot as he turned out to be): https://youtu.be/d8o4HnBjOhc [Warning, the video may be alarming to some people as it shows two people being shot - one a criminal, one an officer with at least the latter being fatal].
The above video also shows how quickly scenes unfold and how quickly decisions need to be made.
6
@John That's a crock. Cops crave authority over others, and immunity from oversight for their actions - not to mention all the special "perks" they get just from being cops in our society. Add to that gross overpay, and Cadillac pensions, and you have your motive right there. We could do with a lot fewer of them in most places. Now that marijuana is being legalized, it is great to see their general uselessness in the light of day, too - no more ability to equate pot with crime, etc.
Some of the comments in this thread repeat a myth - that police officers are well-trained, especially in comparison to civilians. This is not true, as most police officers probably do not fire their weapons more than once or twice a year (for range qualification), unless they like guns or are in a job such as being a SWAT Team member.
I believe that visiting a range at least once a month is the minimum requirement for maintaining superior proficiency with a handgun (which is a perishable skill). With over 38,000 uniformed officers, it would be an impossible expense for the NYPD to send all of its officers to a range on a monthly basis. (And the NYPD makes it even more difficult for its officers to obtain and maintain proficiency by mandating that they select their carry weapon from three different models, all of which have been modified to have extremely stiff trigger pulls that make it very hard to hit the target of aim.) In contrast, among civilians who like guns and own multiple firearms, chances are good that they will go to firing ranges much more often than the average police officer. And IPSC and IDPA competition shooters can easily fire over one thousand rounds per month, in comparison to 50 to 100 rounds per year fired by the average police officer. Handgun skill is a matter of practice, and it does not require an excessive investment in time and money for a civilian to become more skilled than the average police officer.
9
Clearly at least one of the officers has decent groupings considering that 2 people were hit. Firing at a range no matter how many times a month does nothing for split second decision making during intense situations. I would rather have a cop with bad aim and poor judgment than one with deadly precision and poor judgment any day.
1
@Allan Langland Federal Agents qualify 4X per year. I agree with your assessment. Now retired I shoot a lot more than when I was on the job.
3
@Ben Except, of course, if the cop with bad aim shoots an innocent bystander or a fellow cop!
"The robbery suspect was identified as Christopher Ransom, 27, of Brooklyn, who has history of prior arrests for minor crimes and whom the police were seeking in connection with a cellphone store robbery in January. He was shot eight times, the police said, and was in stable condition at New York Hospital Queens. He was charged with murder and robbery."
If the robber had a fake gun, how can he be charged with murder?
16
@john
When a person is killed during the execution of a felony, regardless of how the person is killed, or by whom, the perpetrator can be charged with felony-murder, on the premise that if the person had not committed the serious crime, the death would not have occurred.
21
@Eric As I understand it, that is certainly true in many states, but I'm not sure about ALL states. And what about the presumed perpetrator who may or may not have committed the serious crime? Shoot to kill first, ask later?
2
Living in The New York area most of my life, I must say I think the training of these officers should be re-evaluated. I have a nephew who is a police officer here in the suburbs of New Jersey. A college graduate, this is the path he has chosen. Anyone who thinks this job is not without its dangers should not apply. I know it’s very monotonous and the majority of officers never use their guns, but there is always the chance that it can occur. And the reason we have training for police is so they don’t act like civilians in a situation exactly like this, shooting in a panic. I am particularly disturbed that a plainclothes officer with 19 years experience didn’t try to diffuse the situation, I feel terrible for him and his family, but what if the streets had more people around? How many civilians put in danger by this type of action would have to be stricken before a commission is formed to look into this? Too many officers protecting themselves rather than the public. Training should be ongoing for every officer, regardless of rank.
5
@Mary Nagle
I agree completely.
My father was on the Baltimore City Police Force in the roughest part of town. In his 25 years he never fired his revolver once, despite daily having the longest lock up sheet in his station house.
I do concede that there are far more, (and more powerful ), guns today. Thanks NRA.
2
Police need to abandon the Hail Of Hot Lead Approach where shots fired by any party precipitate wild shooting by all present. Nothing in this account suggests the officers shot by friendly fire were even challenged first. A call referencing a single robber with a gun resulted in two unarmed men being shot. It's too much like the O.K. Corral, with no seeming plan or protocol in force.
20
What do you mean by “challenged” in respect to your statement about the officers killed by friendly fire not being “challenged” first?
Do you mean “challenged” by the suspect? By the other cops? I’m not sure I understand
1
@Peter Aretin
The two victims may have been innocent, but they were armed policemen.
The level of culpability comes down to protocol. Is this the standard protocol of the NYPD? Were the plain clothes detectives expected to identify themselves so their fellow officers would know they were not with the robber? Did the second set of responding officers have a description of the suspect? Or were they just responding to an armed robbery in progress with no specifics?
Hopefully the NYPD will use this tragic situation as an opportunity to learn and institute more rigorous firearm training in addition to non-lethal ways to deal with these kinds of situations. I'm in my 30s and I remember a time when a suspect having a gun was not necessarily a situation that ended with gunshots. Cops knew how to talk people down. Deescalate a situation peacefully with suspects in handcuffs and everyone else, officer in civilian alike, intact and minimally harmed.
4
I’m all for de-escalation, but it would seem a bit challenging sometimes when a suspect is approaching with a gun, presumably failing to follow commands etc. & there are no fairly suggestive signs that its an attempted suicide-by-cop situation.
Maybe there were, I don’t know. I don’t know if the likelihood of suicide by cop is at all more or less predicted by the fact that cops are called for what appears to be an actual apparent crime in progress or not vs someone simply behaving erratically or walking around with a gun, etc.
Obviously we don’t know all the details, but the fact that the cops in the store hadn’t already shot the suspect that was walking straight towards them with a “gun” pointed at them suggests that something is up.
It seems like cops tend to shoot anytime they see a suspect with a gun approaching them, especially if it’s raised
Perhaps they were trying to avoid shooting the folks that had been corralled in the back of the store by the suspect. But I don’t know it cops are required to hold fire to avoid possible bystanders if their lives seem clearly at risk. If I was a cop I’d probably think a guy pointing a gun at me while approaching me had a decent chance of killing me if the gun was real.
Maybe they sensed it was fake but if so, shouldn’t they have called out to their fellow officers or yelled something about it to the suspect? I assume they’d already told him to “drop the gun!”
Decades ago when I was a teenager, I participated in marksmanship competitions. I don't know about now, but in those days, rounds varied quite a bit in their trajectory relative to where you pointed the gun. Pistols, with their short barrels, are not accurate to begin with. Guys shooting semi-automatics were famous for their inability to hit anything and their prodigious waste of ammunition. And of course, if you're in a panic, you can't shoot straight even lying prone with a perfect rifle. It's not like in the movies. It's extremely dangerous being anywhere near a bunch of guys shooting semi-automatic pistols, even if they're all on your side.
16
What scares me most is these were trained officers and when it hit the fan the bullets went where they shouldn't have. Yet we have a segment of the population who believe in the same situation without the training, that they'd stay cool.
Not criticizing the officers at all. All it takes is for one gun to start firing and folks are going to get scared and follow suit. It's no video game out there in the real world.
26
@Dan Johnson
Generally, civilians acting in self defense in their own home know who is in the home - there are not strangers (plainclothes officers) wandering around.
As well, law abiding civilians are usually very hesitant to shoot which is why the vast majority of defensive use of guns are resolved without a shot being fired, let alone the intruder being injured -- the intruder either flees upon being aware the homeowner is armed or surrenders. In part this is because the homeowner has no desire to shoot the intruder as it would make a mess, cause damage, and possibly expose them to civil lawsuits.
On the other hand, police have none of these concerns - they enjoy qualified immunity.
Sure, there are some civilians that show horrible judgement and kill an innocent (like the Halloween guy), but then police do the same (such as the officer who killed an innocent man because she thought, supposedly, that she was walking into her apartment but had the wrong apartment).
Comparing bad police shooting to bad civilian shooting by law abiding person is difficult because they typically are in such different situations.
4
I'm truly sorry for the Families of these Officers, I extend my very sincere condolences. I hope that an independent investigation is done, and soon, to answer questions that you have, and provide real, accurate information.
17
A totally unnecessary and tragic outcome.
Since the police constantly inflict this sort of grief on the rest of us, I suppose it's no surprise that they occasionally inflict it on themselves.
20
@Anonymous
"Constantly"? How many thousands of police runs are there daily across the United States, with excellent outcomes for those in need. Police shootings are rare, and far more complicated than most people -- who proclaim themselves experts through their convenient armchair quarterbacking -- understand, or try to understand. Yes, some police shootings have poor decisions and terrible outcomes. But I have had the need for police officers to respond several times in my life -- and I was never antagonizing them or in the process of committing a crime or threatening their well-being or very lives. And I remain grateful for the overall lifesaving quality of the service work they selflessly provide society, day in and day out. I assume you will not call 911 if you are ever in a dire personal emergency? Please.
14
Another sad outcome of our culture: Shoot first and ask questions later. I fill sad for the fallen officer and his family; for that outcome has not redressed.
9
@Joseba De Subijana I cannot see this stopping anytime soon. It's so *easy* to obtain a gun and a badge and just follow the boys. Worse 'Nothing' is ever really learned nationwide from any of this. If you have a "name, phone number, handcuffs" culture it's only going to become much worse and has. In the Bay Area alone, across time, police officers shoot their own undercover officers, rob banks, and engage and finance prostitution and drug and $$$$ theft.
We need to double the pay, triple the educations and transform the entire profession at a core level vs. making small department ordered adjustments. Mamy of the most violent and corrupt officers who are fired just move to another CIty and get right back in the game. A national database will be one part of a larger transformation, however we as a nation seem to learn little to nothing from all of this. Kind of like politics I guess.
The police officers obviously over reacted. The young man killed could of been tackled very easily. In addition, the police should of communicated before hand and aimed for his leg. Looks like new training is needed. Huge over reaction. If they just followed the suspect with a fake gun, he could easily of been tackled. a detective was killed due to a cell phone store robbed that has insurance. Another officer was shot in crossfire. New training needed. How much could the items stolen actually be worth? Was not a bank but a cell phone store. If there are cameras every where they could easily of traced him. the robber was probably mentally ill or living out a fantasy. What an over reaction. to kill one of your own due to a cell phone store robbery.
20
@Ralph Petrillo
You, frankly, don't have a clue what you are talking about.
To do what you suggest would have violated police policy in every jurisdiction I'm aware of. The ONLY reason for an officer to use lethal force is to stop a threat to the life or severe bodily injury of another person - and then it is appropriate to end that threat as quickly and as effectively as possible while minimizing danger to others. "Aiming" at a suspect's leg indicates that lethal force is NOT justified as it's extremely difficult to hit such a small target reliably with a sidearm, even if the shot hits the target it doesn't stop the threat effectively as the suspect can easily return fire, and the bullets are more likely to harm others (as more will be needed to actually hit the leg and few will do so).
"Tackling" a suspect with a gun would be done only as a last resort -- esp. when the suspect has already threatened and imprisoned others (the store employees) using the gun (i.e., he wasn't simply a crazy guy talking to himself waving a gun around and not showing any tendency to actually threaten anyone directly).
The police were not responding primarily to preserve property - they were responding to an active robbery scene where human lives were being threatened by the suspect.
This will likely come down to being a training and communication shortfall.
Hopefully, the suspect can be charged with the death of the officer as his felonious criminal behavior indirectly caused it)
9
Is it standard practice for even multiple officers to try to tackle someone that is approaching them with a gun?
I’m not asking whether it should be done but what is standard practice.
I’ve often wondered why cops don’t go for the leg in more situations. Someone that knows more about guns than me (I don’t really know anything) once claimed that it’s not as easy to hit a target like a leg as one might think.
Plus, especially if they have a weapon, they can just fatally shoot you in the meantime, especially if you miss them completely.
Once again, 42 shots against a guy with a fake gun and a detective is dead. Doesn't a law officer ever fire once or twice and pause to see what's going on?
21
@LHan
We don't know the details yet, but officers are generally trained to fire until the threat is clearly stopped. Due to human reaction times and, often, the difficulty of verifying that the suspect is actually no longer a threat several shots more than the "bare minimum" (with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight) being fired. And, when there are several officers firing, each one is going through the same process - if there are five officers firing at a suspect, figure five times as many shots more than the "bare minimum" (with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight) being fired.
4
Clearly there is a very very very very bad deficit in the training of police regarding how to use their weapons.
27
So the robbery suspect with a fake gun (obviously no shots fired by him) has been charged with murder in respect of the policemen who was shot.
13
@Noel
If someone is killed as a consequence of a crime, the person committing the crime is considered to have committed murder also in many circumstances, even if they had nothing directly to do with the death. I don't know how it works in NZ, but in the US, that's the way it works.
13
@Noel correct. Here in America any deaths that follow from the commission of a felony result in a murder charge for the person or people committing the felony.
I wonder whether this is a cultural thing in the US where police seem to regard life as cheap. If an offender has a weapon, why not take cover and negotiate rather than blindly blaze away at anything that moves? Just because they have the right to kill someone, it doesn't mean that it is mandatory. I remember reading another story recently where an innocent person was killed by police when trying to assist in a shooting incident. A man with a gun: must kill. And another about an Australian woman shot and killed by police in the US when she approached police for assistance.
Of course this is a consequence of laissez-faire gun laws and culture in the US. It must be harrowing for police knowing that it is very likely that an offender is armed, whether they are or not. The police are probably extremely edgy at such encounters and their fear and instincts override their training (or lack thereof).
This sort of thing doesn't seem to happen in other first-world countries.
30
@Barry Long
Hmm... what about those employees whose status was probably not known by officers and who could have become hostages?
And, it says "The man in the store advanced quickly toward the officers inside, pistol raised" - when someone is advancing on officers with what is believed to be a real gun, it's not time for negotiation. And "cover" is actually very hard to come by - "concealment" is sometimes available, but that doesn't protect you from bullets. (For example, if you think a car door will stop most handgun rounds, think again). If there are bystanders around, they may not have the chance, or knowledge, to take available cover.
It's tragic that the officer was killed. It's not tragic at all that the suspect was shot - the police were doing their job with respect to shooting the suspect.
6
@Bob Richards
Clearly any alternative approach is better than shooting two of your own officers. Who were they aiming at?
At least if you are concealed, the gunman can't see you. If there were bystanders around it seems that they could just as easily been shot by the police: not to mention employees.
3
@Barry Long I suppose the world can tell about that by now. Just watch American made Hollywood movies. They're all about gun violence, and that's what the American public is consuming. Americans romanticize guns. America looooves guns. Their police included. The civilians too. Almost anyone an buy a gun. Almost anyone can fire shots when they feel like it. Mind boggling.
4
Such a sad outcome. Totally unnecessary!
Maybe there would have been a different outcome, IF police officers were trained to be much more DISCIPLINED in their response to criminal activity, instead of being gun-slinging cowboys.
So far as we know, the suspect never fired a shot, not with his fake gun. So what provoked the undisciplined fusilade from the responding officers? Where was situational awareness? Where was command and control?
Instead of an effective and efficient law enforcement response, what happened was a melee, a latter-day OK Corral shoot-out by a blue mob.
The NYPD Commissioner should resign in disgrace, for this incident is a grievous failure in his leadership. NYC deserves much better from their Police Department.
20
Condolences to the family of the fallen detective. 42 shoots in 11 seconds. Crazy. His body must have been bullet ridden, no? Otherwise, where and at whom were all these trigger-happy cops shooting at? Either bad shooters or just poorly trained and unprepared for the situation. If you panic and just shoot because others are shooting, that is just crazy. Or am I missing something.
11
@Frank
I'm sure that 42 shots didn't end up in the officer.
Seven officers opened fire - if they all shot an equal number of rounds (presumably fairly simultaneously), that's only 6 shots per officer. I would expect each officer to shoot at least that many. All the officers are trying to stop the same threat to themselves and others and responding as trained -- fire until the threat is stopped.
The can't coordinate as in: "Okay, if your badge number is divisible by four you shoot on seconds that are divisible by four and fire two shots". These situations evolve very quickly - there are not hours of training for this _exact_ situation. This is not a video game.
4
@Bob Richards
What you don't address is why 7 officers needed to fire simultaneously. And if 7 more officers had responded, would it be appropriate for them to all fire also? Protocols should have been in place for how to proceed at any crime scene when multiple officers respond. There should also be oversight at the dispatching end as well so that we don't have every officer in the city responding to the same call which could lead to chaos at the crime scene and the rest of the citizenry left unprotected.
7
So what if six or seven squad cars showed up, I can remember living there in pre-Giuliani time when you couldn't get one for hours because of the terrible lack of resources caused by poor administration out of City Hall. The officer gave his life to save someone in trouble. Criticism is not proper at this time.
6
@Isle
But it is stlll fair to say that had this fallen Detective not disobeyed NYPD regulations his life may have been saved by doing what the rules state "Wear your bullet proof vest"
let this be a lesson to members of all police forces to do so.
@Carlyle T. I don't totally disagree, but the timing of criticism and choice of words are everything. For example, you stated "Let this be a lesson." What is "this"? The officer died yesterday and the negative comments are flying without the full facts.
I think its ridiculous to rain a storm of lead on one person and I am willing to call it negligent . It brings back memories of when they lit up the unarmed man in the door way years ago that Dylan wrote a song about. True definition of trigger happy cops.
16
Many commenters are focusing on the dread semiautomatic handguns which are the universal police weapons. They would have fired just as many rounds just as fast if they were carrying traditional revolvers. The problem is training, not hardware.
4
This should be a cautionary note to the good-guy-with-a-gun crowd who promote thoughtless ideas like arming teachers! Here we had 7 highly trained good guys confronting one bad guy in a confined space having what turned out to be a fake gun! Imagine 100 students caught in the crossfire between a lightly trained teacher and a bad guy with an assault rifle!
77
@J-John: If I could recommend this post a billion times, I would.
16
@J-John Not so highly trained, I guess.
5
Teacher would have common sense and would not react in a frenzy of cowardly panic. And why are people writing that the NYPD are highly trained. I see no evidence of that. Perhaps we'd be safer if they were unarmed like London bobbies.
4
I guess police officers don't assess the scene any longer.
10
Remember Barney Fife? One bullet carried in his pocket. Not in his revolver. Sheriff Taylor didn't even carry a gun.
It seems as though every situation today, no matter how benign, requires ten patrol cars a SWAT tank and blazing guns.
14
Do we even believe the narrative the police spin?
A guy pulling out a fake gun threatening to shoot two cops who have actual loaded guns? Then the police come rushing in and shoot each other. Utter madness, with gun crazed officers blasting away killing one of their own. The whole thing sounds out of control and without supervision.
27
It doesn't matter if the criminal's gun was real or fake. The response from the police will be the same if the gun is pointed at them. And, hopefully, the penalty will be the same if either a fake or real gun is used to intimidate a victim.
11
Any wrongful death settlement paid to the family of the murdered officer should come from the coffers of the Patrolman's Association. That's how you eventually solve the problem, make the cops pay for their actions.
17
I am so sorry for these two great guys getting hurt, for Detective Simonsen losing his life.
I am so sorry for all the cops responding to protect the city and facing this terrible trauma.
I'm sorry for the robber ... maybe something could have helped him when he was young. I have worked with autism in kids and every kid I've ever worked with was the sweetest.
Rest in peace: a great cop, a great guy a great neighborhood cop, a brave man. I mourn you and I wish your friends, colleagues and, above all, your family - strength and peace. Love goes on.
14
Hard to know the formal diagnosis for sure.
Some people use the term in ignorance & others use it as a kind of polite cover for some sort of psychotic and/or delusional disorder like schizophrenia, etc.
1
"police investigators do not typically interview the officers who have discharged their weapons right away for legal reasons related to the Fifth Amendment."
This is utter and total ... nonsense. It's a covering lie. Stop printing this excuse.
34
"The Gang That Couldn't See or Shoot Straight". NYPD. Suspect discription: black man; one of the persons shot: stocky white man. Does the NYPD require yearly vision tests? If not, they soon better. Lawsuits? No. Qualified immunity. Sorry Mrs. Simonsen you're out of luck, no recourse thanks to the SCOTUS. Something is and has been wrong with our legal and law enorcement system. No politician has the guts to fix it for fear of the police unions and right wing law and order nuts.
8
I have absolutely no sympathy. 42 shots? This is not Afghanistan or Iraq. This was a stupid robbery. Apparently no attempt at deescalation, or we wouldn't be here. We need gun control. Keep guns out of the hands of police.
34
Lots of anti cop comments. Don't call one if you need one. Simple. Robbery in progress turn your head and ignore it. Why would anyone want to be a police officer in this climate.
5
@I have had it Name another 6 figure job requiring only a HS diploma and less than a year's training, with huge benefits, a pension, and legal protections for life.
I'll just wait here for the answer...
Oh, and most cops complain about the boredom and monotony of the job, not the danger. It's not an easy gig, but they're more than fairly compensated.
15
@I have had it
Allowing the robbery to occur would have resulted in one detective remaining alive and zero cops shot. I can't understand what protocols would allow seven officers to open fire simultaneously and empty their clips. This isn't some Vietnam War Hollywood movie. This event is the equivalent of responding to a termite problem with a flamethrower.
If these people are true professionals, then they need to start conducting their response to these situations in a more professional manner. Justice is only served when the perp gets their day in court, and everyone else walks away.
Creating a bloodbath by getting spooked like a herd of cattle is not what I would consider responding to a threat with appropriate action or force.
14
Well apply for the job and make changes within. But if someone has an object that looks like a gun of course multiple police officers are going to shoot. I wasnt there so I dont know how these officers reacted.
1
Poor training or shoot em up cop culture? Trigger happy cops do it again, this time against one of their own.
9
Just another day in the life...and death...of an NYPD officer.
Ne York City's finest!
My heart aches for the family of the police detective. But I am outraged.. How many times do we have to read about police officers killing innocent people (or even suspects) during shootouts? Or high speed chases about nothing that result in accidents with innocents? WHO is looking at training? Why arent we trying to de-escalate situations instead of playing frontier justice? This happens all over the country and there is a fundamental flaw somewhere.
14
In a situation so fraught with danger in which there is a presumably armed perpetrator and many armed police officers, is it every man for himself? Doesn't anyone take charge? I understand that in some situations immediate action is necessary but it seems that in this case and other police shootings, a more deliberate response based on prior training would avoid the type of chaos and loss of life that ensued here. Let's hope that better procedures and training will result so that Detective Simonsen will not have died in vain.
8
Can we agree, that the combination of tactics, trigger happy individuals and high capacity handguns is bad? Issue cops revolvers and of not number of shootings at least the number of shots will go down.
3
@Henry As I read the article there were 42 shots fired by seven officers. I'm not great with math. How many shots per officer is that? And how many rounds does a revolver hold?
3
If this was where I work , there would be an immediate stand-down, and days of rexamining procedures, all opinions aired and considered, and within weeks a re-assessment of how to act under certain conditions..
Why is it ALWAYS six or seven cop cars - are they so bored??that would be my first question..They have all the power, enough to kill themselves,..and every person within a block rasius of the crime..Do we need six screaming cop cars, with hyped up cops, over a robber y..the culture needs a stand down, the culture needs to change...and rich people are going to get higher taxes on themselves, and pigs will fly..never..
14
The combination of human nature and semi-automatic pistols makes these kind of incidents inevitable! First, in a confined, but relatively open, space bullets cannot be seen but they can be heard! The sound magnifies the fear to a near panic. The first thought is to get one off before you the next one gets you. When cops had revolvers, if the first shot was a judgmental misfire then the time needed to effectuate the mechanical steps required for each individual reflexive shot limited the number of self-survival rounds. With the nines you now get 16 reflexive survival discharges in 11 seconds!
9
@J-John Blaming the type of pistol is nonsense - these guys would have fired just as many rounds just as fast if they were carrying revolvers.
3
@J-John what on Earth are you talking about? Seven officers fired 42 shots. That's 6 each. The same number as a revolver which, like a semi-automatic pistol, fires one shot for every pull of the trigger.
4
One of the aggravating factors in police shootings, as in shootings of all kinds, is the use of semi-automatic weapons with high-capacity magazines.
Perhaps police would be more careful about where the bullet was going if they only had six, and if the weapon were a little slower to reload. And perhaps criminals would do less damage if semis with high capacity magazines were tightly-enough regulated that they were unavailable to them.
8
@jonnorstog 7 officers fired 42 shots total. So how many shots per officer is that?
1
How many innocent civilians have died just in NYC alone during the last 25 years under similar circumstances? Must be in the dozens, yet the cops who were obviously trigger happy in those incidents were never changed or faced PD disciplinar measures but here it's called tragic "Friendly fire". What's tragic is the lawless discharge of their weapons regardless of who is involved. When will the NYPD and the mayor wake up? Time to hold all police officers accountable never mind what the PBA threatens. "Tragic Friendly fire" for cops; trigger-happy "justifiable" use of force for the rest of us.
32
@lou andrews
Trigger happy is an accurate of the portrayal of the police officers in this case, Officers in this situation where a gun (or what the officers believed was a gun) is pointed in their direction have every right to shoot at the suspect. What if the suspect had killed someone in the store without any police fire? I am sure that people would complain that the officers did not react properly and allowed the loss of life.
The bottom line is the officers will get it wrong from time to time. So long as they had a good faith basis for their actions, no legal action should be taken against any officer.
5
@lou andrews . Fires can be friendly, how?
@Schneiderman
You are dead wrong. That is communism or being a republican since 1980 if you will.
1
This is tragically like the police “chase” on Long Island were the stolen car killed three innocent people. Everyone would be better off if they just let them go. Yes, let the criminals go! Police, are not paid to kill, or even endanger, completely innocent citizens.
The training of professional law enforcement should be for them to take their emotions out of confrontations. You have the criminal who is scared and adrenlized being chased by the police who are acting the exact same way. Getting the innocent killed is gross incompitance.
27
@Prant "Let the criminals go" will not be a very effective strategy for reducing crime. You are suggesting chaotic anarchy, where power and weapons give anyone the right to do anything to anyone. And as for taking the emotions out of confrontations - have you ever faced a lethal threat? There still is a real world out there, no matter how we might wish to keep it away from our lovely utopian ideals.
1
@Prant
This is the right answer. The response should fit the gravity and scope of the threat. No need to unleash a bloodbath on a uncooperative drunk or shoplifter. Even a robber will eventually get what they want and leave.
Police departments need to apply more strategic thinking in their response and less military tactical response.
3
Cops are good at giving out parking tickets or managing regular people. But ask a cop to do more and they panic and shoot everyone but the target.
28
@John- Does Officer Peter Liang ring a bell?
6
So the perp was shot eight times. EIGHT TIMES. Cops these days are WAY too trigger-happy. Now that they've murdered one of their own, perhaps they'll re-examine their firearms and de-escalation training. Probably not, though.
66
@IZA Almost certainly not.
Although we can always hope.
8
@IZA
With seven officers firing a total of 42 shots at the same target, it is somewhat alarming that the suspect only ended up with eight holes in him (and, since he survived, they likely were not all in his center of mass where they should have been). However, perhaps there were extenuating circumstances such as parts of the suspect's body being shielded by obstacles.
It appears, on the average, each officer only fired six shots and, if we exclude Sergeant Gorman, the remaining officers fired only about five times each. That seems a little low to me, but perhaps they were restrained because they didn't have clear shots and they were concerned about hitting another officer (which, tragically seems to be what happened anyway in the end) or bystander.
I don't see anything "trigger happy" here -- each officer, upon deciding to use lethal force, is presumably going to attempt to stop the threat for the safety of themselves, fellow officers, and bystanders. They would not assume that other officers will instead do it (else, they might just all stand there and get shot by the suspect while each of them assume that the others will stop the suspect). When the left fielder and the right fielder both run towards a fly ball and neither one calls it and it drops between them, the impact at worst is four runs scored against their team. When dealing with a life and death threat to one or more officers, the cost of assuming that other officers will take care of it can be much higher.
3
I have never understand why we call a deadly mistake friendly fire.If the robber was described as a black man how can the death of a stocky bald white man be called friendly fire? We blamed the Parkland Safety officer for not running into the school while the shooter were killing the children.only the holder of a toy gun knows it is a toy and in heat of the moment people panic. Can you train fear out of people? No but you can improve procedures on how to handle certain situations. When they discover the gun used that actually shot the officer the owner of that weapon is going to be another life destroyed. I was not there so i cannot armchair quarterback from the safety of the peanut gallery. All i can say is that it must be a better way of handling these deadly situations.To the family of the fallen officer my condolences to the shooter I offer my regrets for the life you have to lead after this.
9
More officers showed up and still more, according to the story. How many cops needed to be there for a holdup by one man of a phone store? Seems like overkill. Fewer cops, maybe, less chance of things going wrong.
25
@AlNewman
It sounds like dispatch put out a call for all available units in the area to respond (or similar). For the dispatcher to iterate through available units in the area until they find the four that could respond the most quickly would probably delay response to what is a fairly critical emergency substantially. Perhaps employees being held hostage at gunpoint. Dispatch can't keep track of exactly what each officer's situation is (how far from their car are they, are they dealing with a traffic stop with a testy driver who they don't want to turn their back on or be distracted from, are they waiting for a particularly tasty doughnut, etc) and even officers don't know if they will encounter congestion even when they are only three blocks away.
Had this turned into a hostage situation or something evolving more quickly, it might been, in retrospect, very good to have a lot of officers on the scene. They could be needed to secure the back and front of the store, possibly scurry other customers out, get people in adjacent buildings or across the street to get away from the area, and begin directing traffic to clear the block.
Perhaps, though, a few too many were responding directly to the front of the store in this case - but, getting things immediately well coordinated in quickly evolving situations like this is quite difficult.
@AlNewman That logic needs to be applied to most of the US - the exception being big cities, of course.
And we want to arm school teachers to take down active shooters in a school? Just the thought of depending on an educator to be prepared to participate in a gun fight is ludicrous and the people pushing that idea elevator doesn't go up to the top floor.
66
@Steven McCain Having been a teacher for 40 years, I can tell you that there are few men or women who have pistol training and fewer would know or want to know how to shoot a gun IN A CLASSROOM with children of all years scattering. Frighting to say the least.
9
@Dick Diamond
I suspect that varies a lot from area to area.
Anyway, all you need are a few to serve as a deterrent. Any such program should include very specific training and testing of those that chose to participate. It's not necessary that applicants already have what is currently non-existent training. It would probably be wise to only accept participants that already are quite facile with firearms and can prove that -- someone who has never fired a gun in their life probably shouldn't qualify for the program.
2
@Steven McCain
In a school shooting situation, if the gunman enters the classroom, you are really more worried about the teacher inadvertently shooting a student before stopping the intruder than in the intruder being able to massacre everyone in the room without any opposition? That's odd math and logic.
Would you not also like someone thinking about carrying out a mass shooting to think "Hmm... I'm pretty sure some teachers at that school are armed, but I have no idea which ones. If I die in my first classroom I'm going to look like a fool and my name won't go down in infamy. I'd better consider alternatives."
Ideally, all schools would be locked down with metal detectors, fortress walls, x-ray machines, and other forms of search (including random locker and classroom searches) to make sure students don't have weapons. Unfortunately, that is just too far out of the scope of economic possibility in the next ten or twenty years. Therefore, it's reasonable to consider other ways to mitigate the problem that ARE practical, albeit imperfect. It's unwise to let perfection be the enemy of the good.
2
More education and training. Minimum four years of college before you can be an officer with a gun. Otherwise, you get adminstrative duty or a nightstick.
7
@Hopesprings88- that will fall on deaf ears with the city officials. It would be an admission of guilt for the past 100 plus years of policy failure.
1
@Hopesprings88
You are forgetting how important it is for cities to save as much money as possible because taxes are the tools of the devil.
2
@Hopesprings88
Are you proposing a four year degree be required in "Police Officer Science" or just SOME four year degree? I have no idea how a four year degree in an unrelated field would improve the quality of officers (virtually all of which carry firearms in the US -- else they can't be on the street enforcing the law).
Indeed, requiring just SOME four year degree would likely decrease the quality because Art History majors who discovered they couldn't get a job that paid would look at police work JUST because it pays well compared to what they can find. Without that requirement, another recruit who actually wanted to do police work and was interested in it would have taken the job without a four year college degree.
Good police officers do need to be reasonably intelligent, but high education levels seem unnecessary -- that four years would be better spent in training than learning Art History.
This reminds me of the foolishness of Trump’s suggestion that the way to make schools safer is to arm the teachers. In this situation, the police, who are (supposedly) highly trained in the use of firearms, killed one of their own. Can you imagine what would happen if a bunch of teachers started shooting?
23
@Mark Gettes
Teachers in such programs should be trained for that specific role and should probably be trained to shelter first, and shoot only when sheltering has failed and an active shooter is in the room.
Is it better for the shooter to successful target, and perhaps kill, EVERY student in the room or for one or two students to be inadvertently injured by an armed teacher who successfully either drives the shooter away or eliminates the threat they pose (by disabling or killing them). Realistically, the teacher probably wouldn't even have enough rounds to kill every student in the room even if she WANTED to -- the school shooter probably does.
That position seems a little like refusing chemotherapy for an aggressive terminal cancer which has a 75% chance of saving your life because the chemotherapy itself has a 5% chance of killing you prematurely.
1
@Mark Gettes, a better idea would be to arm the students... at least a few in each classroom who can stand up and shoot at the shooter.... they could get extra credits and you wouldn't even have to pay them. What could possibly go wrong in this scenario?
Just for comparison, these are the numbers of killings of individuals by year by law enforcement officers in the US compared with some other countries (source Wikipedia)
US = 996 (2018)
UK = 3 (2015)
Germany = 14 (2017)
France = 14 (2017)
China = 4 (2015)
64
Sigh. If civilians in the United States didn't have so many guns and weren't so busy murdering one another, and then turning to aim at the cops, our police officers would not have to fire their own weapons so often.
8
The NYPD are taught to shoot to kill when they decide to use their weapons. A deadly and overbearing approach that has resulted in the deaths of numerous people with mental illness holding nonlethal weapons.
Why not shoot to disable or disarm? They take target practice; shoot them in the legs or the arms.
It would have saved this officers' life.
Politically incorrect, but think about it.
13
Common sense is never politically incorrect.
2
It's very difficult to hit an arm or a leg especially in a dynamic situation when adrenaline is pumping. Police aren't specifically taught "shoot to kill" but to aim for "center mass" i.e., torso.
7
@RebeccaTouger Shooting at an extremity to disable is a Hollywood fantasy, just like the idea of a warning shot. Even in the best of circumstances, it is difficult to hit a target with a handgun, and aiming at a small (and possibly moving) target such as an arm or leg only lowers the probability of hitting the target. Police officers (and civilians) are taught to shoot at the largest part of the body (the torso) and to keep shooting until the person falls down.
The act of shooting someone means that there is an immediate and grave threat that legally justifies the use of deadly force. This requires incapacitation of the person in the quickest possible manner to stop the threat; other than a shot that severs the spine, the most effective way to incapacitate someone using the relatively weak power of a pistol is with multiple shots to the torso.
4
Virtually no police officer anywhere would get shot, and many unnecessary deaths would be preventedd if, before shooting, a police officer counted to "one."
12
No one in charge and everyone has guns. What could go wrong?
21
@Wolfcreek Farms That's what my husband said. He is a retired NYPD detective. The problem here was that no one was in charge.
7
I remember reading some years ago, 2012, I think, a report of a man with a gun in front of the Empire State Building. The man shot and killed a co-worker. The police arrived and opened fire, killing the man. Nine civilians were wounded, all shot by the cops.
Donald Trump could walk out on Fifth Avenue and be shot by a cop and still win the election.
17
@Paul
We can only hope.
4
First, my heartfelt condolences to Officer Simonsen's family. This tragedy, harkens back to Springsteen's "American Skin", with a reference to 41 shots .
An exhaustive investigation ,no doubt, be carried out. And none of us were there in the moment. That being said , over 40 shots by multiple officers in 11 seconds , begs questions regarding what is their training and "standard operating procedure " in a robbery circumstance . There is clearly room for improvement, and I hope there will be lessons learned.
21
Police, far too often these days, are taking the saying "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6." too literally. What I can't get over is 42 shots in 11 seconds by seven officers.
13
@Philip K that comes to 6 shots per officer over 11 seconds, or just below 2 seconds per shot. That is not a high rate of fire. Competitive shooters produce split times between shots in the 0.2 second range.
2
@poppop
As well, each officer is operating independently once the shooting starts. They can't assume that "someone else" (i.e., a colleague) may stop the threat - each one individually will act to stop the threat and they are likely trained to continue firing until it's clear the threat is neutralized. If seven officers were reacting simultaneously (although I suspect the responses were somewhat staggered), I'm surprised that there were only 42 shots fired.
@poppop
But at least competitive shooters have better situational awareness while they're doing it!
Ready, fire, aim!
All too common today. I am saddened for the loss of the officers life, but hopefully this could lead to some meaningful reforms. Stories like this, sans dead police by friendly fire, are all too common these days. It used to be firing was the last action, now it's the first.
What does the government say during times like this? Never let a good tragedy go to waste, or something similar? Well, here we are, with an ugly tragedy and a veteran detective dead, over little to nothing. I'll wait to hear for the proposed reforms, but I won't hold my breath.
13
First. Condolences to the family of the fallen officer. The reward from his ultimate sacrifice should be that the truth needs to come out in a full and open investigation. I don’t understand the rationale behind not interviewing the officers who shot first. Of course their civil rights must be maintained, but the way to get at any necessary change in police protocol can only come from a straightforward and honest assessment of the events that transpired. I hope that our local politicians do not grab the media’s attention by condemning any of the officers involved or the obverse of blindly declaring allegiance to the boys in blue before the facts are known. As a civilian I do not understand why so many bullets and officers were involved in what sounds like a small (meaning one perpetrator) situation. As a tax paying New Yorker I demand a full and clear explanation. In addition, I demand suggestions for change from the mayor, the police commissioner and civilian advisors for what needs to be changed to protect those who protect us and to protect us from those who’s jobs are to safeguard our city.
7
Yes, boys in blue not men.
1
"friendly fire"
What a euphemism for over-reaction and near complete incompetence on the part of the NYPD.
My condolences to Detective Simonsen's family.
What a completely avoidable tragedy.
60
Is there command and control in a situation like this or does each officer say "show me going" and then act totally on the basis of his or her own discretion after that?
26
The police risk their lives every day for us. I am grateful. I would never criticize them when mistakes are made.
5
Even if you are the one caught in a panicky crossfire?
7
@BobC
If you don't criticize them when mistakes are made, they'll just make the same mistakes again. And they do.
43
And the NYPD wonders why citizens can be terrified of them. Sounds like a lot of panic and very little restraint or clear thinking.
79
What is wrong with the way we train cops these days? They just blast away without thinking. It's wrong. Also in yesterday's news, the cops shot and killed a kidnapper -- and his victim. Another tragic case of cops just blasting away. https://nypost.com/2019/02/12/ohio-state-student-and-her-kidnapper-killed-in-police-chase/
75
@Steve L Also today: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/feb/12/california-police-shooting-willie-mccoy
3
@Steve L What's wrong with the training is that it likely happened in Baghdad. Or Mosul. Or in the mountains of Afghanistan.
You get the point.
15
@Steve L
"What is wrong with the way we train cops these days?"
That's because no cop ever gets punished. Difficult to convict cops, but at least it should be clear that the officers involved in this incident and many others accused of shooting unarmed civilians, have at very least very poor judgment and should not be trusted with loaded weapons.
11
42 bullets in 11 seconds is a fusillade of killing projectiles. That's not policing. It's fear and the police are scared beyond reason.
178
A problem having 9 mm weapons that fire so many rounds so quickly. This was an issue raised some time ago when the NYPD changed from revolver type handguns went to 9 mms. We can see why there was concern then...and now. A sad situation.
44
@Peter Lobel this is a pretty simple math problem. 7 officers fired 42 shots. That's 6 shots each. Do you seriously doubt that a total beginner could empty a revolver in 11 seconds?
1
Realistic looking fake guns can no longer be sold in New York City. They should be banned nationwide. The Second Amendment provides no right to own a fake firearm. Had this robber been unable to obtain a realistic looking toy the courageous officers in this case might have chosen not to use deadly force and might still be alive and healthy today.
10
@EMiller maybe if this career criminal had been incarcerated this wouldn't have happened either.
3
@EMiller
I was at Dick's sporting goods the other day. The fake guns had an orange piece in the front. A can of black spray paint and a few seconds of your time and Voila!, a very real looking AR-15.
Did you read the article. The perpetrator obviously had mental health issues and been crying for help all along.
Time and Time again no gun fire discipline just rounds down range. Your not firing suppression fire it’s a civilian environment.
28
If training tells an officer, "This is how you should respond," then that is how he or she will respond. If we don't want this to happen, we need to change our thinking about what constitutes an appropriate level of force, and alter our training and our expectations accordingly.
“Do not hurt where holding is enough;
Do not wound where hurting is enough;
Do not maim where wounding is enough;
and kill not where maiming is enough;
The greatest warrior is he who does not need to kill.”
33
Not 'friendly fire', but 'irresponsible' fire.
93
I echo the sympathy for the officers who were shot and also the concerns for the apparent chaos among the officers whos shot them.
But I also ask why, with all those police present and ambulances called for," a passing civilian drove Sergeant Gorman" to the hospital. What were all the police who shot him doing????
60
@Kevin O'Brien They were too panicked to do anything good.
2
It was only a couple of blocks to the hospital.
Wow does this police department need to stand down and go through some intense training. There is a little too much John Wayne going on in this department and not enough professional thought and discipline.
54
After seeing the respectful gatherings of police officers to mourn the tragedy of errant officer bullets, one wonders where those officers are when civilians are shot without justification.
38
@TVCritic They are at the bank cashing their paychecks and reviewing their gold-plated retirement plans.
The perp was reported as a black man, and the policeman killed was white.
Do these police even listen to the details of the incident with which they are supposed to be dealing?
36
@Joe From Boston You don't think maybe the radio description is often inaccurate and that seeing someone emerge from the store at which the robbery was reported with a gun in his hand might just carry more weight for the officers on scene?
1
Senseless death. But I am a bit concerned about the cops firing more than 40 bullets in a confined area and hitting two of their own. Sounds like the training is not working very well.
50
So sad for this fallen officer, his family, and his colleagues. Meeting a threat that may require deadly force is perilous enough for well trained officers. Do we need any further proof of why it is folly for any official to think school teachers should be armed.
84
@Engineer Inbar
Well you know, school children present smaller targets, so the chance of them being killed in a hail of bullets is that much smaller.
Given that the dominant police culture in the USA seems to be "shoot first ask questions later" this was an accident waiting to happen, - perhaps slightly more explicable than shooting someone asleep multiple times, but not much.
Whatever happened to the idea that the use of deadly force was a last resort when all else failed, not a starting point!
110
I used to call cops 'Officer Friendly'. Now I refer to them as 'Officer Trigger Happy'.
I still remember an incident where nine civilians were wounded by gunfire on the streets of New York who were shot by cops shooting at a suspect they thought had a gun. The suspect didn't fire a shot. The cops did all the damage.
It used to be standard training for cops to fire three shots at a perp and then pause to assess the effectiveness. Now they act like the suspect is Godzilla and has superhuman powers making them impervious to bullets.
132
In my humble observation, this incident suggests that in these situations, police have more to fear from their colleagues than from the actual "perp". Cops need better training. Blaming the perp does not soften the loss.
42
"Details of fatal police shootings in New York can be slow to emerge in the initial 24 hours, in part because police investigators do not typically interview the officers who fired shots for reasons related to the Fifth Amendment."
I wonder why they don't even try to interview the officers. Does the Fifth Amendment allow cops to get their stories straight first?
And why does "M.O.S" (member of service) have to be said when the ambulance is called? Should everyone be given priority when they're shot?
87
@Brian these are all very good points. I hope Joseph Goldstein can dig deeper and answer these questions.
8
@Brian the union contract spells out when and how they can be interviewed. Brass follows the rules. Contract was negotiated and agreed to by both the city and the union. End of subject.
Everyone is given priority when shot. MOS get an extra bit of attention. Society breaks down a every time a police officer is killed. When an MOS is being transported to the hospital, they set-up roadblocks to control traffic points and get the ambulance there as quick as possible. Have you ever driven in the city at rush hour?
11
@Brian
The 24 hrs can allow discussions with the police union attorney and development of a unified narrative.
19
While this is tragic, and losing one of our great defenders is more than our city should have to bear, I question(even when a split second judgment has to be made) why 42 gun shots were necessary. This also illustrates once again that there has to be serious flaws in the way our officers are trained to use their weapons, and when and how to approach this kind of confrontation. I know this sounds cruel, but when you fire 42 shots, and the most serious damage inflicted is on your squad mates, accuracy is a serious issue for the police department , and always has been. These police officers, their families and the residents of this city deserve much better.
119
Because it's a split decision and the officers dont have time to ask who will shoot first.
2
@I have had it--It was a cellphone store robbery. Good grief. No one was being killed, kidnapped or maimed. Theft of property is not worth anyone's life. 42 shots are, quite literally in this case, overkill.
26
@I have had it
Perhaps this will highlight the need for the first responder to be in control and others wait for instructions ... 42 shots? So sad and unnecessary. I won't criticize the police involved as I'm sure it is an incredibly stressful situation to arrive at. I do criticize the training they are offered.
7
This is a result of police now trained like military. Troops kick a door and shoot . Often innocent people and children are killed.
It's now the training in local police- workshops done by ex-military and here is another result of that mentality.
All these responses are just like 'swat' actions- firepower and assess damage after. Countless reports of wrong house, wrong suspect, now a fellow officer dies in a hail of bullets.
My father was a NYC cop and then 'street smarts' ruled the actions. All these cowboy cops who showed up should have identified themselves and all those procedures that go with an event in progress. Look for the coverup by police brass to create a believable narrative. I remember when a NYC policewoman was shot dead by a chain snatcher and her partner had already gone home. She had no backup and the family got to the truth over the 'official' story.
So guns in the hands of the 'good guys' are just guns in hands. Wow are we a troubled society.
151
@Dennis McSorley, 100% agree with your analysis. Americans have forgotten the primary purpose of policing. Street smarts and familiarity with the neighborhood are essential to “keeping the peace.” Militarizing police in the interests of public safety is absurd.
2
". . . a man with a gun was robbing a T-Mobile store in Queens. A bystander outside the store said two employees had been taken to the back of the store."
New York's finest and bravest literally raced to the scene in hopes of saving lives. That's what cops do - capture bad guys and save innocent lives. How and why this chain of events went off the rails will be dissected and reviewed and examined over and over again. The fact that one of their own died by the hands of one of their own all the while the perp carried a fake gun is the cruelest of cruel fates.
I truly detest the phrase "friendly fire". I know what it means and its implications however, there is still nothing friendly about it when a brother or sister dies in the line of duty, accidentally, by another cop. It's simply tragic beyond tragic.
10
@Marge Keller
"That's what cops do - capture bad guys and save innocent lives. "
Except Marge this time they didn't. The cops raced to the scene and killed one of their own, an innocent.
And no it will not be dissected and examined because they will not want the public to see that examination. And they have no mechanism for implementing anything they learn that might avoid it in the future.
11
@Hooj
I truly appreciate your feedback and view point.
However, it is with the utmost respect that I am in disagreement with your assessment. I do believe a thorough investigation will be conducted although it may not be publicized. No cop, whether in NY or LA or Chicago wants to find themselves in a similar scenario. I have faith in the NYPD. I believe in them. Many a heart is broken and shattered. NO ONE wants a repeat of what occurred last evening.
4
@Marge Keller
Most "accidents" really aren't, they are *incidents* with some notable degree of negligence. The truth of this incident will not be revealed.
1
Trigger happy police inadvertently take down one of their own. I'm surprised it doesn't happen more often. Perhaps PD's should reconsider the 'shoot first, ask questions later' tactic.
70
And trigger-happy teenaged gang members whose errant bullets pierce siding and murder little girls in their beds? Or who murder bodega owners for 10 bucks?
So it was a plastic gun. So what.
Very sorry indeed that the police officer was killed.
6
My condolences to the officers family. This this is an example of police departments around the country shooting first and ask questions later which results in so many black men getting killed.
Did the officers who showed up after the first group feared for their lives which caused them to shoot so many times?
Why was there so many police officers responding anyway?
53
Why do so many reporters call their fellow citizens "civilians"? Do they see the police as an occupying army?
The police are our neighbors. They live among us, not in "police bases". They are every bit as much "civilians" as is the general population.
Stop putting walls between us and our citizen police force.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
17
Maybe it’s because that barrier is put there by the police themselves. Their “Blue Line” code of conduct shows that they put loyalty to each other far above their loyalty, and duty, to society at large.
28
Because the definition of civilian is, according to Merriam-Webster, “one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force.”
14
@Kevin Schmidt: Clearly, you are citing an internet/computer dictionary, the kind of thing that lists "Febuary" (sic) as an acceptable pronunciation. Webster's unabridged International lists "civilian" as one not professionally engaged in the army or navy.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
1
I certainly feel sorry for the officer who was shot and for their family. But the level of incompetence and aggressiveness on the side of the police is mind boggling. No need to shoot anyone before you know what's going on.
202
@S What was going on? They were called to a robbery in progress. Two men with guns drawn came out the front of the store. What exactly do you want the procedure to be in this instance?
3
@poppop
Well, given that there were mistaken shootings before, maybe plain clothes police should not rush into situation like that with gun drawn and NOT have a vest with bold "POLICE" written over it!!
The vest should always be in their car.
5
@poppop
First of all: The procedure should be to identify who is a fellow police officer and who is not -- before opening fire.
3
Here's an idea for prevention of future shooting related issues.
Fire every single officer who fired their weapon at this call.
It is very clear without knowing anything else that there was never any danger to anyone from the perp which could have justified the use of deadly force.
That alone convicts everyone who fired of a crime or at least it should.
If you are in a hurry to end a situation because you are so scared then you are unfit to be an officer.
99
@magicisnotreal: They shoot first because that is much easier than thinking first.
When I was in high school, a dear friend used to say "If they had any more brains, they wouldn't be cops."
30 years later I've seen little to disprove that maxim.
12
@magicisnotreal Or just fire the chief of police. No corporate leader could ever survive something like this, why should a government leader?
3
@magicisnotreal these officers responded to an armed robbery in progress.
Two men with guns came running out through the front door of the store.
And in your analysis it was "very clear" that there was never any danger to anyone? You might want to rethink that.
2
What police need is dart guns with fast-acting but generally nonlethal tranquilizers. No loud bangs to get the adrenaline flowing, and much less risk of death from friendly fire. But such guns would be unmanly.
34
@sdavidc9. This is a good suggestion! It was proposed many years ago and rejected based on disparate impact. The disparate impact was that some people might have an allergic reaction and others not.
8
@sdavidc9 Sometime the police want to shoot through a barrier to reach the criminal. darts wouldn't do the job. I say that only because too often the police are looking to kill, not subdue. Their first reaction is to save themselves and the public, not think about the suspect. If he's a suspect of something no matter the crime -- selling cigarettes, bad mouthing, running away, whatever, then that's too bad on him -- unfortunately.
7
@sdavidc9
First they need discipline, self control and assessment by a person in charge. Just stand back and try to figure out what is going on first.
7
This is tragic. So utterly tragic. Light and love to the officers.
15
@P: What? No thoughts and prayers?
C'mon, that's what these families will now live on for the rest of their lives; thoughts and prayers.
12
Before we judge these policemen we should wait to see what the investigation reveals
We need to know why these cops felt it was justified to use deadly force.
Even if they thought someone could get killed if they didn't shoot they should have known shooting their guns was not going to stop it.
So there are questions that have to be answered which if they can might make the police better at what we pay them to do.
8
@Saul
42 rounds in 11 seconds?
5
The vast majority of police officers never fire their guns so when they have them drawn they are hyped up, and wary of life-threatening outcomes. All it takes is one to see (or imagine seeing) a gun, and call out or open fire, and everyone else unloads. Training is probably the only way to deal with this but it is very hard to untrain human fears and emotions.
13
@Michael Richards
Training to overcome fear and emotion is one of the oldest and easiest forms of training.
The problem here is the mentality of the trainers and those who develop training practices and the standards,
Example- The recent folderal over the wall negotiations about how many people can be held. The repubs came out and said the Dems were trying to limit the numbers of criminals ICE(they) can hold. The fact is that this is a lie by diversion. What they do not admit to is classifying all undocumented as criminals thus they are not focused on the dangerous criminals which is what they encourage people to believe while knowing they have no intent of doing that.
The people developing Police training standards are doing so from the same intentionally deceptive place. They want the public to think one thing when the fact is they are doing something that is different and they know the public would object to.
Another example is this ridiculous lie that I cannot see what I see in a video!
The problem is secrecy in police training and refusal to take on the risk they demand to be paid for. Example this situation, it was a fake gun there never was any danger from the perp. Why did they open fire on him? He certainly did not shoot at them or anyone else. Where was the necessity to shoot outside the training they were given that told them it was right to shoot?
20
@Michael Richards So then the question is what are they so afraid of today that they haven't been afraid of in the past? Why is this type of thing happening at an increasing rate?
1
@Michael Richards if these officers were responding to an armed robbery in progress (which they were), and the two plain clothes officers who were retreating from the store had their guns drawn (which seems likely since they were in a store responding to an armed robbery in progress), it is reasonable to assume that what the officers outside saw were two men with guns drawn exiting the scene of an armed robbery. Their actions, while tragic in this instance, were likely completely reasonable.
p.s. I loved your work on Seinfeld
2
So many shootings occur within seconds or minutes of an event before anyone even knows what is happening and who is who. Why do our police go in shooting and immediately return fire? Aren’t they trained to assess? And what about everyone knowing that so many different officers were responding? Seems like a disaster from minute one but one that could be ameliorated with proper training and protocol. Not everyone needs to rush in with guns drawn and fingers on triggers.
157
And the commissioner has the nerve to blame the robber for his death. As if poor discipline had nothing do with it. Completely minimizing the responsibility of those who pulled the trigger. just a bunch of overgrown highschoolers with badges and guns who don't think for a minute before taking a life.
76
@Gail Ostrow
It was a fake gun, there was never any danger.
13
yes but how were the officers supposed to know that?
5